My blog provides alternative view on Kashmir dispute and politics of South Asia, especially India Pakistan relations. It aims to educate people that they can make informed judgements.

Sunday, 20 May 2018

CPEC and geo political realities, Dr Shabir Choudhry

CPEC
and geo political realities

Dr
Shabir Choudhry 20 May 2018

Pakistan claims their friendship with China is higher
than Himalayas, deeper than sea and sweeter than honey. I have never heard of a
friendship like this between the countries in the world.

What they claim defies the principles of international
relations, which clearly says, countries
do not have permanent friends or enemies. Relationship between the countries
are based on shared values and national interests.

Countries
and their leaders protect and enhance national interests. However, these
interests, visions and alliances can change with the change of leadership and
ideologies.

Apart
from that, if we accept that countries only look after their interests, it
means two friendly countries can have a clash of interests while preserving self-interest.
Most, if not all, countries have imperialist or expansionist ideas to enrich
and empower themselves; this is how small powers became major powers and built
empires.

Although
empire building has stopped in one sense; but still all countries want to
enrich and empower themselves. Countries still need new markets for their
products; and cheap raw materials and energy sources; and that results in
disputes, apprehensions, conflicts and wars. Gun boat diplomacy is not relevant
in 21st century to control markets, although some countries still
use force to advance their political and economic agenda.

National
interests determine foreign relations

As
pointed out above national interests of countries determine international
relations, and not personal likes and dislikes. It is possible that leaders can
make mistakes in deciding and prioritising their national interests, hence
change of friends and allies. Furthermore, national interests can change with
time; and in fast changing geo political situation.

Pakistan
perceived Soviet Russia unfriendly country, and rejected the hand of friendship
from Moscow. Instead, they bent their back to win friendship of the United
States of America. In order to oppose and harm Soviet Russia, Pakistan joined American
led military alliances. It was with Pakistan’s help that Russia was defeated in
Afghanistan. Pakistan thought it was in their national interest to oppose
Russian advance in Afghanistan, although it brought havoc to Pakistan.

Now
situation has changed. Pakistan is becoming closer to Russia and relationship
with America is not as friendly as it was a decade ago. The American new
strategy about Afghanistan and Pakistan has resulted in Pakistan desperately
mending its fences with Moscow.

The
American policy makers believe; and not wrongly, that Pakistan has been playing
a double game. Pakistan was receiving huge funds from America, including
military aid; and was an ally in a war against terrorism. Pakistan took all the
help with both hands, but did not stop complaining and providing help to the
Taliban and other militants fighting the Americans. Washington believes that
many American lives were lost due to Pakistan’s covert and overt help to
America’s enemies.

Pakistan’s military planners, on the other hand, believed
that the policies they pursued were in the country's "national
interest". The civilian leadership was not on the same page with the army
on this; but in Fort of Islam, generals decide what is right and who is a patriot.
They would not change their definition of ‘national interest’ until a disaster
takes place; and even then, they will a civilian scapegoat to blame.

One
commentator under title of ‘Reluctant
romance: Would Pakistan finally embrace Russia’? wrote:

‘The two
countries seem to have buried their past differences and are looking to cement
their ties economic, political, and defence ties’.

It was clear that in
view of estranged relationship with Washington, alarm bells rang both in
Islamabad and in Rawalpindi; and attempts were made to seek help from Beijing
and Moscow.

As expected, China wasted no time express their clear
support to Pakistan. What amazed many was the response of Moscow, which
acknowledged Islamabad’s ‘pivotal role’ in a fight against terrorism. Russia
also appreciated Pakistan’s role in promotion of regional peace and stability.
This was extraordinary initiative, especially when viewed in the light of
decades of antagonistic relations between Pakistan and Russia.

It is believed that some background work was already done
before this statement. In fact, Pakistan started to woo Moscow when relations
with the United States started getting tensed after incidents like Abbottabad, where
Osama Bin Ladin was killed; Salala, where 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed,
and CIA contractor Raymond Davis who killed civilians in Lahore.

New
strategic realities

President Trump’s new Afghan policy and likely reprisals
for Pakistan was expected; and the Pakistani diplomats work hard to
counterbalance that. As soon as President Trump’s policy was announced, the
Pakistani diplomats were in contact with Moscow; and urged them to come out to
support Pakistan in this hour of need. Russia, against predictions of many, and
by forgetting the wounds of the past, did not disappoint Pakistan.

Russia exhibited a clear message that Pakistan should not
be intimidated, and made a scapegoat for failure of their wrong policies. Russian
presidential envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said, Pakistan was “a key
regional player”, and unnecessary “pressure on Pakistan may seriously
destabilise the region-wide security situation and result in negative
consequences for Afghanistan.”1

The American diplomats
also contemplated Pakistani options to ‘offset’ pressure or possible attack
from Washington. Diplomatic circles agreed that the changed scenario will test
Pakistani patience and will force Pakistan to acquire ‘deeper and enhanced
cooperation’ with China and Russia. One Pakistani diplomat said:

“If the US
does not consider our legitimate concerns and just toe India’s line, then we
will certainly move closer to China and Russia.” 2

The American policy
makers understand importance of Pakistan in bringing peace in Afghanistan.
However, they feel if your ally deliberately hurt your interests, then ‘it will
certainly create misgivings’, said one American official, when asked the wisdom
of the US decision. American policy makers believe “Washington is being ripped
off by Islamabad”.

Because of the
changing scenario, relations between old adversaries continued to improve; and
in 2016, both Russia and Pakistan agreed to conduct joint military exercises.
India, and to some extent America was not happy with this new development.
Before the planned military exercises, Indian military base was attacked by
militants apparently sent by Pakistan, in which 21 Indian soldiers were killed.
India was furious over this and urged Russia to cancel the joint military
exercise.

Despite friendship
spread over many decades, Russia paid no attention to the Indian request. So, one can see, alliances
and interests do change with the changed geo political situation.

Being a novice to international relations, Pakistan
committed a blunder by jumping on the bandwagon of the American led military
alliances against Soviet Russia in 1950s. Pakistan suffered immensely because
of this mistake and India benefited. It is believed that Pakistan has learnt a
lot over the years, and they will try to maintain friendly relations with all
big political players like America, China and Russia.

In view of paradigm shift in relations, Russia has lifted
arms embargo against Pakistan in 2015. In
June 2016, Moscow and Islamabad concluded $153 million helicopter deal, and Russia
has delivered Mi-35 advanced assault helicopters to Pakistan.

Pakistan has great
strategic location; and they have been making use of that to accrue benefits
and plan their foreign policy accordingly. It is debatable for how long they
will be able to effectively take benefit of the geographical location. However,
Russian can use Pakistan to send their goods to Middle East and to other
markets.

Russia has also
expressed keen interest to use the CPEC, which will enable them to realise
their goal of having access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf
and Indian Ocean. Russia also wants to invest in various sectors like
agriculture, telecom, oil and gas development.

After purchasing
Mobilink, Russian telecom giant, Vimpelcom has also obtained Warid. This
1-billion-dollar investment gives Russian telecom giant a strong base in the
telecom industry in Pakistan. Russia has expressed interest in purchasing banks
and laying down railway lines.

Pakistani writer and
research Fellow at Centre for Research and Security Studies, Sadam Hussain
wrote:

‘With Russia’s growing
interests in different sectors of Pakistan’s economy and tapping into the
potential areas where it can either invest or capture the market for Russian
goods, it seems that after Chinese adventurism of CPEC, Russia Pakistan
Economic Corridor (RPEC) is also in the making. The thought of it may be ahead
of time, but if Pakistan plays balanced chess moves on the board of
international and regional politics in particular, it can become hotbed of
intersecting world economies.’ 3

Realising
growing friendship between Russia and Pakistan, New Delhi placed a large order
of 5.5 billion Us dollars in 2016, on condition that certain types of weapons
will not be sold to Pakistan, which include S-400 surface to air missiles.

An
expert associated with the renowned British think tank, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)
feels Russia may change its position if India continues to purchase military
equipment from the West, especially America.

However, another defence expert, James Hackett,
associated with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, feels
because Russia still has many large defence orders with India; it is likely
that Moscow may not ‘significantly deepen defence ties with Pakistan.’ 4

In this context, it is imperative to mention that due to
Russian and Chinese pressure both India and Pakistan resumed their backchannel
talks. Beijing and Moscow emphasised that problems of Asia should be resolved
by Asian leaders without and interference from outside. Pakistani side was
opined that for peace and stability of South Asia and for the success of the
CPEC it was essential that there was peace in the region; and that both India
and Pakistan should resume their talks to resolve all outstanding disputes.

The Indian and Pakistani experts had meetings in
Islamabad between 28 April 2018 and 30 April. According to reliable sources
both sides “discussed all aspects of bilateral relations and agreed that all
issues between the two countries should be resolved through talks.”5

“India should walk the talk and refrain from provocative
statements. Our armed forces practice restraint but have the capacity and are
ever vigilant to give a befitting response to any threat to the motherland.”6

American concerns and strategy

Another interesting twist was noticed in international
relations and alliance building exercise, when the American President Trump,
known for his undiplomatic, but daring statements asserted that he ‘too
believes theChina-Pakistan Econo­mic Corridor
(CPEC) passes through a disputed territory.’ It must be remembered that
India’s opposition to the CPEC was based on this plea that the territory of
Gilgit Baltistan belonged to New Delhi; and that China and Pakistan had not
right to continue with these mega projects in a disputed territory.

The American Defence Sec­retary James Mattis, while
speaking in the Senate Armed Services Committee said:

“The One Belt, One Road also goes through disputed territory,
and I think that in itself shows the vulnerability of trying to establish that
sort of a dictate.” 7

He further said in a globalised world there are many
‘belts’ and ‘many roads’, and ‘no one nation shou­­ld put itself into a
position of dictating One Belt, One Road’. He also ‘opposed’ the CPEC
because it was ‘going throu­­gh a disputed territory.’8

This new development can further deteriorate the tensed
relations between Pakistan and America. Also, it can encourage other players to
take positions in changing political, strategic and economic situation in South
Asia and beyond.

Tension between
American and Pakistan has many dimensions. Their relations have seen many ups
and down in the past. Both governments know strengths and vulnerabilities of each
other. Their love and hate relationship is likely to continue. Both countries
need each other for different reasons. One American policy analyst expressed,
rather bitterly, that:

‘After reading scores of incriminating intelligence
reports and experiencing first-hand the frustrations of dealing with Pakistani
counterparts, many concluded that Pakistan’s military and intelligence forces
guilty of a cruel, immoral and deceptive strategy that helped Afghan Taliban
insurgents kill hundreds of US troops and made another major terrorist attack
against Americans and their allies more likely.’9

Many American experts believe that Washington and
Islamabad have clearly worked against each other with different and opposing
strategies. These experts strongly believe that American officials are:

‘fully convinced that Pakistan employ’s some terrorist
groups as proxy fighters in Afghanistan and India. These groups have American
blood on their hands.’ 10

Despite this strong observation made many years ago, more
or less same relationship continued between Islamabad and Washington until
President Trump came on the scene with tough actions. They were friends and
allies; but they were suspicious of each other’s objectives and strategies.

Another American said, ‘Islamabad is addictive to US
assistance dollars’. Pakistan needs dollars either in the form of military
aid, development aid, grants or loans. In return, America also want many things
from Pakistan and expect honest dealing.

The American narrative aside, some analysts, especially
Pakistanis believe that America doesn’t want to see politically and economically
stable Pakistan. They believe the CPEC can bring economic stability; and that
is why America is opposing the CPEC. Economically strong Pakistan with a large
army and nuclear arsenal can help Pakistan to withstand the American pressure of
‘do more’.

Apart from that, America thinks the CPEC is an important
component of the Belt and Road Initiative; and success of the CPEC will give
China a strategic and economic edge over America in this region. Furthermore,
India is America’s new defence and strategic partner; and both partners
perceive the CPEC as a future threat. The Pakistani policy planners think, because
of these reasons, America has to oppose the CPEC.

Pakistan’s denial to provide access to Afghanistan and
the Central Asian markets forced New Delhi to think of alternative strategies.
One such strategy was to start air cargo between India and Afghanistan, which
is up and running. The other strategy was to develop Iranian port of Chabhar,
which could be used to ship Indian goods to landlocked Afghanistan and Central
Asian countries. For this purpose, India committed more than 500 million; and
also, constructed roads to transport goods to Kabul.

If Chabhar route becomes viable and attracts customers,
who don’t want to be victims of instability of Pakistan and parts of
Afghanistan, and Pakistani policies, then it can take away a considerable
business away from the CPEC.

In this context, President Donal Trump has also urged New
Delhi to speed up the development of Chabhar port and the road links, which
will ultimately help development of Afghanistan. This route will also provide
access to goods from the Central Asian countries and Afghanistan to the Indian
markets and beyond.

Where
does Iran stands in this equation?

Relations between Iran and America have not been cordial
for many decades. The American led policies against Iran, by and large,
alienated Iran, and hurt them considerably. The optimism after the nuclear deal
is also dashed by President Trumps unilateral withdrawal from the deal. Even
though countries like Britain, France and Germany are not with America on this
vital point, but question arises what will be response of these countries
should there be armed hostility either between Iran and America or with their
proxies in the region.

Some analysts believe the CPEC has hidden strategic and
military agenda. China and Pakistan, for obvious reasons deny this. On the
other hand, Pakistani strategic policy planners view development of Chabhar and
India’s ‘acquisition’ of Duqm port from Oman with suspicion.

These critics see it as an Indian strategic planning to
counter any misadventure emanating from Gwadar port. They see all this in the
context of Indo – Iran Defence Pact of 2003, which provides certain military
cooperation to India.

In a case of war like situation with India, these
Pakistanis think, Iran may allow Chabhar port to be used against Pakistani
coastal areas. They feel

These critics go as far as saying that India may be
developing these ports and new trade corridor for Afghanistan and Central Asian
Republics for ‘deeper sinister strategic designs?’ In a war like situation,
India may even ‘place some of their nukes/missiles in Chabahar, Duqm or any
of the other military bases they are desperately acquiring all over the IOR to
retain their second- strike capability?’ 12

There is not much merit in this argument. Perhaps, the
writer is not fully aware of Indian capacity and ability. Indian policy makers
claim they want to avoid war with any country because they want to concentrate
on economic development. They know war, be it with Pakistan or China, will
destroy much of the economic achievements, and hold back development plans for
many years.

However, Indian defence analysts claim, if war is
thrusted upon them, then they have the ability to defend their borders and
teach Pakistan a lesson. Before we make any serious comments on military
position of India and Pakistan, and possible threats to India, one needs to see
the world Military Strength Ranking 2018.

‘The complete Global Firepower list for
2018 puts the military powers of the world into full perspective. It takes over
55 individual factors to determine given nation’s power index’.

In this ranking India is 4th most powerful military in the
world. Pakistan is at no 17. Are we suggesting that the country which is at no
17, in the world military ranking has power and ability to militarily defeat
the country which is at no 4 in the world power ranking? 13

Apart from that
Iranians are not fools to allow India to station their nuclear weapons on their
territory and endanger peace, security and lives of the Iranian people.
Furthermore, people need to know that Iran have their own issues with Pakistan
and cause for resentment.

Iran is clearly
unhappy with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan close military cooperation and strategic
alliance. Pakistan is not only providing training and military weapons to Saudi
Arabia, but has also sent more army there on top of the troops already
stationed there. Tehran thinks this military assistance and sending of more
troops will boost the Saudi Arabia’s ‘ambitions to dominate’ the region.
Also, Iranian government is suspicious that Pakistani troops and weapons can be
used in Yemen to hurt Iranian interests.

In view of some
Iranian policy makers, presence of Pakistani troops and so called Muslim army
commanded by former army Chief of Pakistan General Raheel Sharif in Saudi
Arabia pose a serious threat to Iran and can further destabilise the region.

These critics who link
development of Chabhar port with some military agenda, overlook the bitter
facts that apart from the above, Iran is annoyed with Pakistan because Pakistan
did not fulfil their part of the contract with regard to the Iran Pakistan Gas
Pipeline. Furthermore, Iran is cagey about Pakistan’s attempts to get LNG from
Qatar and gas through the TAPI Gas Pipeline.

Additionally, Iran is
unhappy because Russia is building 2 billion-dollar North - South Gas Pipeline
from Lahore to Karachi to supply LNG to Pakistan. Iranian are not fools; they
understand that despite the contract with Iran, Pakistan has made alternative
arrangements and have ‘cheated’ them.

To make matters worse,
Iran believes that Saudi supported Wahabi groups are attacking Shias in
Pakistan. Also, they think Pakistan has allowed anti Shia groups like the ‘Jaesh-e-Adl,
which reportedly operates cross border from Pakistan.’

So, one can see Iran
had many outstanding issues with Islamabad many years before the idea of CPEC
was even conceived. Even if the CPEC projects collapse, the disagreements which
Iran has with Pakistan will continue to exist; and trouble both governments
because they have religious and ideological dimension.

Relationship of India and China

India and China have
many relations. They are neighbours, competitors, enemies and good business
partners. They fought each other in 1962. They continue to have military
skirmishes on disputed borders. Good thing is that their diplomacy has matured,
and they have decided to resolve their difference by a process of dialogue.
They have also decided to continue improving their trade despite outstanding
disputes and hurdles.

Despite claims of
Pakistan and China that the CPEC is an ‘economic project’, Indian strategic
planners do not accept this, as they see hidden military and strategic aspect
to it; and is concerned about its defence and national interests. Apart from
that, India claims Gilgit Baltistan, the CPEC gateway to Pakistan as its
territory, which is illegally occupied by Pakistan.

China has not only
tried to satisfy the Indian fear with regard to the CPEC, but has also
continued to improve economic relations with New Delhi. China also invited
India to become part of the CPEC.

In this context, many
discussion between officials of two countries have taken place. One can say the
most import is the meeting that took place in Wuhan, China, between Narendra
Modi and Xi Jinping on 27 April 2018. The Indian government requested this
meeting, a kind of summit; and objective of this was to iron out differences on
geo political issues in and around the region.

It is believed that
the Chinese ‘drift’ towards India has alarmed many in Islamabad, even though
they spend more time fighting each other than focussing on issue that have
serious implications for the future of Pakistan. Analysts in Islamabad feel
that Modi has been successful in explaining to Jinping that they can continue
to improve their trade relations, despite New Delhi’s geo strategic partnership
with Washington.

Both Narendra Modi and
Xi Jinping agree that they must focus to de-escalate tension in the region in
order to enhance trade and economic relations. For Modi, this meeting is good
for local politics as well, as he can present himself as a statesman with
ability to promote peace and understanding with neighbouring countries.
Economic achievements and building bridges of peace in the region can help him
in the general elections taking place next year.

It must also be noted
that under the banner of SCO, India, Pakistan and China are meeting in Russia
in September 2018, to discuss various issues related to terrorism. It is believed
that in the Modi – Jinping meeting, they could have also discussed and agreed
on certain aspects of this multi-nation counter-terror exercise.

The emerging role of
SCO in the South Asia and Central Asia must not be underestimated; and
importance of SCO countries is growing with time for the success of the CPEC
and Belt and Road Initiative. Countries need to learn to concentrate on
economic development rather than arms race and military conquests, which only
add to problems of the suffering people. There are hundreds of millions of
people in South Asia and in Central Asia living below the poverty line; and
efforts should be made to alleviate this suffering.

It is important to
note that America and India worked together in a conference of Financial Action
Task Force (FATF) in February 2018, at Paris to include Pakistan’s name in the
grey listing because of Pakistan’s unsatisfactory record related to combating
terrorism. India and China met in Wuhan, China, in April 2018 to work on
projects of mutual interest to both countries. This again proves the point,
that countries only care about their national and strategic interests,
friendship and principles are only used as sweeteners.

The CPEC is a big bail out for Pakistan. It will help
Pakistan to build infrastructure and meet energy requirements. However, people
need to understand that mega projects bring with them mega responsibilities,
which many experts believe Pakistan is not in a position to accomplish. As a
result of Pakistan’s failure to fulfil their responsibilities, the country will
run in to deep problems.

The Chinese Ambassador to India, Luo Zhaohui, in the
context of Modi – Jinping expressed his view like this:

‘From the global perspective, China and India are largely
relevant to the evolving international structure of “rise of the east and decline
of the west” and against the headwinds of anti-globalisation and protectionism.
From the respective developments, we should share the developmental strategies
and experiences as our combined population and GDP account for 40 percent and
20 percent of the world’s total.’ 14

He further says that both countries
have to look at perspective of each other, and coexist. The focus, he says,
must be development; and that we can seek guidance to formulate policies from
our leaders. The Chinese Ambassador
further said:

“Equally important is to implement the consensus,
transmit personal friendship between the two leaders down to the common people,
and take more concrete actions. Wuhan Summit is not a talk shop and we have a
lot of work to do in the future such as trade deficit mitigation, acceleration
of BCIM process, cooperation in Afghanistan and establishment of high-level
people-to-people exchange mechanism.” 15

Many more aspects of geo political
alliances and interests can be discussed and analysed. However, I shall do this
under another topic. No doubt, the CPEC is important; but more important are
geo political realities of this region, and it is imperative that we look in to
future and see what can happen and what should happen.

About Me

Dr Shabir Choudhry has done extensive research on the issue of Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations. He passed BA Honours in Politics and History, and Mphil in International Relations (title of the thesis, ‘Kashmir and Partition of India’); and title of his PhD thesis is ‘Kashmir- An issue of a nation not a dispute of a land’.

Apart from this Dr Shabir Choudhry passed Post Graduates Certificates in Education, and NVQ Assessor’s qualifications; and taught English in London.

Political Achievements

Founder member of JKLF (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front established in 1977) and got elected as a Press Secretary in 1984.

Became its Secretary General in 1985, and resigned from this post in 1996.

Got elected President of JKLF and Europe in May 1999, and decided not to contest in elections of July 2001.

Said good - bye to the JKLF as it is in many groups and is largely seen as advancing a Pakistani agenda on Kashmir dispute, and set up a new party Kashmir National Party in May 2008.

.

At present, he is:

·Spokesman Kashmir National Party and Director Diplomatic Committee;

·Spokesman for International KashmirAlliance;

·Founder member and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs;

Previously

·A founder Member and Trustee/ Director of London based registered charity, Kashmir Foundation International and resigned from this position in August 2001.

·Regularly take part in the Sessions of the UN Human Rights (Commission) now Council in Geneva; and address various conferences and seminars to oppose violence and highlight the Kashmir cause.

·Participated in a Round Table Conference on Kashmir, organised by Socialist Group of European Parliament in Brussels in 1993.

·Addressed as a Chief Guest in a seminar on issue of Mangla Dam during the UN Sub Commission’s proceedings in August 2003.

·Addressed as a key - note speaker in a seminar on the issue of Gilgit and Baltistan, organised by Association of British Kashmiris.

·Addressed as a keynote speaker on human rights conference in Paris in 1991.

·Addressed at CambridgeUniversity as a Chief Guest in a conference on Kashmir in 1990.

·Addressed as a keynote speaker at New Delhi conference on Kashmir, which was part of Track Two diplomacy in November 2000.

·In September 2008, addressed a Conference arranged by Interfaith International in Geneva, topic of which was:“Kashmir Issue, Terrorism and Human Rights”.

·Addressed as a speaker in a NGO Conference on Self - Determination in Geneva in August 2000.

·Addressed as a keynote speaker in a fringe meeting of Liberal Democrats at their Annual Conference in Brighton in 1995.

·Participated in World Human Rights Conference in Vienna in 1993.

·Before President Clinton's visit to India and Pakistan in 2000, lead a JKLF delegation to the State Department to discuss Kashmir dispute and situation in South Asia.

·Also had two rounds of meetings with senior State Department officials before President Musharraf’s meeting to Washington in June 2003.

·Apart from that had meetings with senior officials including Ministers of different countries, and also held many meetings with the State Department and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials on number of occasions.

·Played important role in advancing a Kashmiri perspective on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir; and also helped Baroness Emma Nicholson with her report ‘Kashmir: present situation and future prospects’, which was adopted by the European Parliament in May 2007.

·Won first prize in an essay competition in Urdu in 1976. It was organised by High Commission of Pakistan in London, and title of the essay was 'Qaaid-e- Azam's role in Islamic History'.

·Apart from that have addressed conferences in Brussels, Geneva, Toronto, Islamabad, Delhi, and

Publications

·Got first Urdu novel ‘Fareena’ published at the age of eighteen.

·Second Urdu novel ‘Bay-Khataa’ which was about the problems of Asian youths living in UK published in 1983.

·Third Urdu book ‘Pakistan and Kashmiri struggle for independence’ published in 1990.

·Fourth Urdu book is also on Kashmiri struggle, 'Is an independent Kashmir a conspiracy?'

·Apart from that has twenty books and booklets published in English on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle.

·Recent publications are: Kashmir dispute as I see it

·Different perspective on Kashmir

·JKLF visit to Pakistan Administered Kashmir

·Kashmir Needs Change of Heart

·If not self - determination then what?

·Emma Nicholson report- who has won?

·Struggle for independence, Jihad or proxy war (Introduction by Baroness Emma Nicholson)

·

Future publications

Following books were completed some time ago and shall be published in near future:

In Search of Freedom - My visit to Srinagar and Islamabad

Kashmir and Partition of India

A brief background

Dr Shabir Choudhry was born in a small village called Nakker Shimali (near Panjeri) in District Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. He went to UK in 1966, and like other people from the region, holds a dual nationality. He left secondary school in 1970 with no qualifications and began his life as a textile worker.

In 1975 he started part time studies and passed Matriculation from Government High School Panjeri, passed ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels from UK, and resumed full time degree course in 1981, and passed BA (Hons) in Politics and History in 1984.

He continued full time and part time jobs until he got his Mphil. He passed his PGCE (Post Graduates Certificate in Education) in 1990, and then started full time job as a Lecturer. Due to health problems he resigned from teaching in 1999. At present he is self - employed, provides private tuition, translation and interpretation and consultancy.

Through out his adult life he has actively worked for the cause of Kashmir, and even during long illness he effectively carried out his responsibilities as a leader of the JKLF, a ‘prolific writer’ and consistent campaigner of Rights Movement and peace in Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia.